> I have only glanced at the contributions to this thread, so forgive me
> if I say something that has already been said. But it seems to me that
> that waht we have been experiencing in the debate about EGW EIMI and the
> inferences that are supposedly to be drawn about time and existence from
> the grammar of the phrase is akin to a "debate" I once had with one of
> my students over the meaning of the title _A Clockwork Orange_ by
> Anthony Burgess. The student went into a labyrinthian explanation of
> what the title meant and implied, and built a conceptual mountain out of
> a molehill, based on what he took to be the implicatures of its wording
> when he should have been keeping in mind that the title is simply an
> idiom the meaning of which is *not* to be derived from the syntax or the
> grammar in which its constituent words are cast (in this instance a
> British idiom somewhat equivalent to "mechanical man"). So, too, I
> think, is EGW EIMI. That is to say, it is an idiom which seems to be
> grounded in Isaiah 63:25, and was used to signify (cf. Mk. 13:6) the
> divine presence and even a claim to divine authority, but says nothing
> about preexistence, let alone continuation over time. For a full
> discussion of this, please see Appendix IV: EGO EIMI __"I AM", pp.
> 532-538 in Vol. 1 of Ray Brown's Anchor Commentary on GJohn.
>
Of course, the attempt to link a verb of existence (the adverbial PRIN
requires a verb) with a statement of identification (ANI HU) may also be an
example of your experience with _A Clockwork Orange_. We must be cautious
to not categorically dismiss a view that has a sound grammatical basis. That
is why we need to examine the texts and language before us.

A tie with ANI HU or ANoQiY HU cannot be sustained, in my opinion. The ANI
HU expressions are statements of identification, much like the statement of
the formerly blind man at John 9:9 when he cried EGW EIMI. You stated that
ANI HU "was used to signify (cf. Mk. 13:6) the divine presence and even a
claim to divine authority". However, this does not fit the facts since ANI
HU is also used by men, as David said at 1 Chron 21:17 And David proceeded
to say to [the true] God (HA ELOHIM): "Was it not I that said to make a
numbering of the people, and is it not I (ANI HU) that have sinned and have
unquestionably done bad? Thus, although God says "I am he" (ANI HU) in most
of the ANI HU expressions, the claim that ANI HU was used as a claim to
divine authority is unfounded. (Instances of verses where used by God are:
De 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13; 46:4; 48:12; 52:6).

In harmony with the above, I cannot support the view that the EIMI at John
8:58 is not a verb expressing existence. The subordinate adverbial PRIN
clause requires a verb. Where is the verb in the clause EGW EIMI? All
considered, it appears to me that the attempt to link this with the ANI HU
statements of identification (which are also used by men) is a "labyrinthian
explanation" that is not required to import into the text of John.